Linden Lab is building a NEW virtual world

[Thomas Galbreus]

---

kiramanell wrote:

obsession

---

I pointed out the German law in quite some detail. Linden Lab apparently decided to have a service advertised in many countries but to respect only US law. As pointed out, users of other countries are at risk of getting prosecuted if they don't restrict their behaviour in SL.

 

Also US law is plain stupid by having a broad definition of pornography - more puritan than the German definition - but completely failing to protect minors from gainig access to even the most hideous forms of porn by relying on "not lying" when it comes to age "verification".

[Thomas Galbreus]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

Is it wrong that i took the sound from that clip, added a dry humping animation and made a gesture out of it?

---

You still don't get that pushing stuff like that into people's faces is more suitable for the "Adult" forum. Plans to bother people with a "dry humping gesture" is not as bad as bragging about a submissive woman, but still. How about discussing your fine morals and exquisite taste with the "adults" and leavíng this place for the grown ups?

[Thomas Galbreus]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

 Did I? I thought i edited that myself.. How odd. Apparently you have inside info on the workings of the moderators.

---

I only know it was written there until I reported it.

[Thomas Galbreus]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

That said, we are social creatures, so if you can maximize human interaction while minimizing effort, you win. I think that explains Facebook's and Linden Lab's relative market capitalizations.

---

I don't find Facebook very user-friendly. It took me longer to adjust my privacy settings or find older comments I made on Facebook for the first time than it took me to adjust my avatar and clothing or to modify objects in SL for the first time. And without doubt the latter was more fun.

 

I think the reason for the bad usability of huge sites like Facebook, Google or YouTube - only how they forced users to create a Google+-account or completely messed up the comment system! - is because they have a quasi-monopoly so they get away with it.

 

SL starts to become a challenge as soon as you want to achieve things like a complicated build, an own skin or scripting, but that is the nature of these beasts and usually not part of the early experience when people decide if they like SL. I also don't get why some see it as a problem that one has to download a viewer - one also has to download browsers or games or PDF software. I am the last who could be blamed for being too optimistic concerning people, but I don't buy that the average person is overchallenged with downloading and installing a program under Windows.

 

I don't remember such complaints about SL during the time it was hyped; it seems only when child pornography, prostitution etc. in SL started dominating the media coverage and the decline in user numbers began, these things were brought up as possible explanations.

 

I actually hope the new virtual worlds won't be too dumbed down to the extent that being creative will only be possible with external programs.

[Gavin Hird]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

kiramanell wrote:

obsession

---

I pointed out the German

law

in quite some detail. Linden Lab apparently decided to have a service advertised in many countries but to respect only US law. As pinted out, users of other countries are at risk of getting prosecuted if they don't restrict their behaviour in SL.

 

Also US law is plain stupid by having a broad definition of pornography - more puritan than the German definition - but completely failing to protect minors from gainig access to even the most hideous forms of porn by relying on "not lying" when it comes to age "verification".

---

Every resident of SecondLife is on their own responsible that their actions are in compliance with their local legislation.

The biggest vector for someone incriminationg themselves in terms of adult content are the child avatars, which we know both have minors and adults behind them. Combine this with they venture into adult designated areas and you have a disaster waiting to happen (media, corporate or personal.)

The age verification part is different, and even the German population can gladly access tens of thousands of web-sites containing adult content regardless of the age of the viewer. So in that respect SecondLife is no different. 

In fact the alternative was much worse seen from a European perspective as they asked European consumers to hand out copies of documents that are regarded as highly private in EU privacy legislation. For LL (or their representative) to ask for such information, they would have to obtain a license from each country – something they would never get.

Also the use of credit cards as proof of age has since long been rejected by the credit card companies, as they don't want any liability as a consequence verifying people's age. So for LL to keep using credit cards and Paypal they had to shed that prractice. 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

Is it wrong that i took the sound from that clip, added a dry humping animation and made a gesture out of it?

---

You still don't get that pushing stuff like that into people's faces is more suitable for the "Adult" forum. Plans to bother people with a "dry humping gesture" is not as bad as bragging about a submissive woman, but still. How about discussing your fine morals and exquisite taste with the "adults" and leavíng this place for the grown ups?

---

And you just keep making assumptions over and over again. WHo said i was going to "pushing stuff like that into people's faces" or "Plans to bother people with a "dry humping gesture"? How do you know what i am going to do with it? I showed it to my friends last night and they all thought it was very funny. Tell me, what war did your sense of humor get shot off  in?

[Perrie Juran]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

kiramanell wrote:

obsession

---

I pointed out the German

law

in quite some detail. Linden Lab apparently decided to have a service advertised in many countries but to respect only US law. As pinted out, users of other countries are at risk of getting prosecuted if they don't restrict their behaviour in SL.

 

 

 

---

I do not want German Criminal Law imposed (forced) upon me any more than you probably want U.S. Criminal Law imposed (forced) upon you or for that matter the laws of any other country. 

Linden Lab is a U.S. company and has to comply with U.S. law.  They don't have to comply with any one else's laws.  But as a company operating in an International market they have looked at the laws of other Countries and set boundaries (the Maturity Ratings: G, M & A) so that people in other Countries can legally access the Service with out violating their Country's laws.  In the case of Child Porn (where actual sexual activity is involved)** they have simply banned it.

But to call upon LL to enforce the Laws of other Countries is wrong and from a simple practical point of view would be next to impossible to do.  This is why it is left to the individual to know and obey their own Country's laws.  There is nothing unreasonable in this.

 

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

 

Also US law is plain stupid by having a broad definition of pornography - more puritan than the German definition - but completely failing to protect minors from gainig access to even the most hideous forms of porn by relying on "not lying" when it comes to age "verification".

---

Actually no laws protect anyone from anything.  Laws do act as a deterrent because people don't want to run afoul of them and suffer the consequences.  But if a robber decides to rob someone, you can wave the Law Book at them all day long and it is not going to stop them.

 

 

Seriously, do your less puritanical German Laws actually stop anyone who decides to break them?  In reality, all that any Law does is provide for consequences after the fact.

 

**I state this because I know that their are people who think the mere image of a naked child is Porn, something I disagree very strongly with, and also I don't know if it violates German Law.

[Thomas Galbreus]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Actually no laws protect anyone from anything.

---

You wouldn't mind living in a country where murder is legal then, since you think it makes no difference if a law against it is in place?

Any just law has the goal and effect of protecting citizens from harm by unlawful activity. For that purpose the law gets enforced by the organs of the state and known violations of law have legal consequences.

 

Of course it is not possible to prevent any unlawful activity unless in Minority Report.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Actually no laws protect anyone from anything.

---

You wouldn't mind living in a country where murder is legal then, since you think it makes no difference if a law against it is in place?

---

...Dres

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Actually no laws protect anyone from anything.

---

You wouldn't mind living in a country where murder is legal then, since you think it makes no difference if a law against it is in place?

Any just law has the goal and effect of protecting citizens from harm by unlawful activity. For that purpose the law gets enforced by the organs of the state and known violations of law have legal consequences.

 

Of course it is not possible to prevent any unlawful activity unless in Minority Report.

---

Please do not exponentialize what I said.

I did afterall, as you did, acknowledge the value of laws as a deterent.

[Thomas Galbreus]

Pardon me for having a sense of logic.

Applying a false statement to a drastic example which has consequences that can't be overlooked is useful to reveal the logical fallacy. That's all I did, there was no need to exponentiate or exaggerate your sentence because it already clearly stated that no law would ever protect anyone. In it's clarity this statement also can't be saved, it is just false.

You seemed to acknowledge the value of laws as a deterent in the next sentence, but then declared the law useless again in the following sentence, as if the way the protection works would be by waiving the law book at offenders. It's just all inconsistent, sorry.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

Pardon me for having a sense of logic.

---

Now, that's funny.  This...

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

Applying a false statement to a drastic example which has consequences that can't be overlooked is useful to reveal the logical fallacy.

---

...on the otherhand, is just ridiculous.

...Dres

[Thomas Galbreus]

Are you just posting here, as someone has put it in another thread, "so people look at his naked profile pic and plug his strip/porn bar", or to stalk me with trivial utterings of disapproval? Since any contribution to the debate has not beeen included in your last posts.

Yeah, I advocate a future virtual world without porn, get over it.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

Pardon me for having a sense of logic.

Applying a false statement to a drastic example which has consequences that can't be overlooked is useful to reveal the logical fallacy. That's all I did, there was no need to exponentiate or exaggerate your sentence because it already clearly stated that no law would ever protect anyone. In it's clarity this statement also can't be saved, it is just false.

You seemed to acknowledge the value of laws as a deterent in the next sentence, but then declared the law useless again in the following sentence, as if the way the protection works would be by waiving the law book at offenders. It's just all inconsistent, sorry.

---

I never said the law was useless. 

And I've been very careful to delimit my statements.

Perhaps it might have been better if I had said that Laws are no guarantee of protection.  But I think anyone reading the entirety of what I said would have understood that.  And if they were applying logic and did not understand then they would have asked me to clarify rather than doing what you did, putting words in my mouth. 

[Thomas Galbreus]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

I

never

said the law was useless. 

---

You said three times that the law would never protect someone / prevent offenses.

"Actually no laws protect anyone from anything."  

"But if a robber decides to rob someone, you can wave the Law Book at them all day long and it is not going to stop them."

"In reality, all that any Law does is provide for consequences after the fact."

It is three times just wrong, if a law is in place, it also prevents offenses with the effect of protecting citizens from harm by offenses.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

I

never

said the law was useless. 

---

You said

three

times that the law would never protect someone / prevent offenses.

"Actually no laws protect anyone from anything."  

"But if a robber decides to rob someone, you can wave the Law Book at them all day long and it is not going to stop them."

"In reality, all that any Law does is provide for consequences after the fact."

It is three times just wrong, if a law is in place, it

also prevents

offenses with the effect of

protecting citizens

from harm by offenses.

---

If you are going to insist on continuing to yank my statements out of the context I spoke them where I stated my delimitations then I see no point really in further discussion with you.

 

[Thomas Galbreus]

It was not a delimiting context, it was a contradiction.

If law is a derterrent, then less offenses are comitted, so the statement that the law never prevents offenses is a contradiction.

[Perrie Juran]

You are speaking into the air now. 

You are the one who has insisted on taking single statements out of the sum of all I had said and have accused me of saying something that actually I do not believe.

That ends the discussion for me.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

I

never

said the law was useless. 

---

You said

three

times that the law would never protect someone / prevent offenses.

---

Excuse me for butting in here, but I want to say that Perrie is correct. What Perrie said is that "no laws protect anyone from anything", and that's what you didn't agree with. But Perrie was right.

Laws cannot stop things from happening. Example: murder is against the law, but that law does not stop murder from happening. The law against murder can certainly make people think twice (at least) before committing a murder, and it can be said that some people are alive now because other people decided not to risk spending a very long time in jail, but that law did not protect anyone from being murdered. It was influential in some people not being murdered, but that's all.

If someone decides to risk jail and murder someone, the fact of the law's existance cannot protect the victim from being murdered, or prevent it from happening. It's as simple as that.

 

 

[Thomas Galbreus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

 it can be said that some people

are alive now

because other people decided not to risk spending a very long time in jail, but that law

did not

protect

anyone from being murdered

.

---

Same contradiction there.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

 it can be said that some people

are alive now

because other people decided not to risk spending a very long time in jail, but that law

did not

protect

anyone from being murdered

.

---

Same contradictiion there.

---

There is no contradiction. You clearly don't understand the whole sentence, or perhaps you don't understand certain words, or maybe you are just being intentionally obtuse. If you read my whole post, you will see that the fact of laws can be influencial in people's actions, but that's all they can be. That's why some people are alive now. You do understand the difference between being influential and actually protecting, don't you?

The protect someone from being murdered, someone or something must actually stop it from happening. Another person could do that, but words on paper can't.

Suppose someone intends to murder you. You are there on the street with the murderer in front of you and pointing a gun at you. What can the law do to prevent your murder? What can it do to protect you? You can try reciting the law to him, or waving a law book in front of him, but if he wants to kill you, he can and will. No law can prevent him from doing it. No law can protect you. It's that simple.

[Thomas Galbreus]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

You are speaking into the air now.

---

I am of course not only speaking to you but to everyone who reads this thread. As long as I get criticized for simply applying logic, I will defend myself, no matter if single antagonists declare and end to their participation in the discussion - which is usually a hollow promise by the way, as demonstrated by yourself for the second time now.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

 it can be said that some people

are alive now

because other people decided not to risk spending a very long time in jail, but that law

did not

protect

anyone from being murdered

.

---

Same contradiction there.

---

I already answered your post - and extremely convincingly too. But I want to make a point...

I also wrote in the post you quoted from, "Example: murder is against the law, but that law does not stop murder from happening." so tell me something. If a law against murder actually protects people, why are murders still committed? Why is it possible for them to be committed?

[Thomas Galbreus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

 You do understand the difference between being influential and actually protecting, don't you?

---

No.

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

You are there on the street with the murderer in front of you and pointing a gun at you.

---

In that situation the protection of the law by deterrence did fail. I already said no law can prevent any crime unless in Minority Report.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Thomas Galbreus wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

You are speaking into the air now.

---

I am of course not only speaking to you but to everyone who reads this thread

. As long as I get criticized for simply applying logic, I will defend myself, no matter if single antagonists declare and end to their participation in the discussion - which is usually a hollow promise by the way, as demonstrated by yourself for the second time now.

---

You need to hope that everyone in the forum doesn't read it